So why is it offensive to consider homosexuality as a choice?

[bz316]

It's offensive because the idea that homosexuality is a choice feeds into the notion that heterosexual relations are the only "natural" form of sexual behavior and everything else is something abnormal that people choose to do for the sake of novelty or amusement (when it is, in reality, an in-born state of being that forms an integral part of a person's identity).

 

[Quellist]

Its no more a choice than liking the taste of strawberries or enjoying hang gliding. Its part of who you are. And as for 'acting upon' seriously?

Its not like acting upon paedophilia or a desire to murder...

 

[Something Amyss]

If sexuality isn't ever a choice then what does that make paedophilia?

Apparently some people have been calling for paedophiles to be recognised as a 'true' sexuality with the same rights granted as those given to homosexuals and for child porn to be made legal

I really don't agree with it at all, but if as many people are saying in this thread that sexuality is NEVER a choice then it does raise the question of whether negative fetishes such as bestiality are choices or not.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

Urgh people using homosexuality to justify peadophilia makes me sick -_-;

This is a touchy issue, so I'm going to try and address it as carefully as possible.

It's true. There's mounting evidence that a large portion of pedophiles are wired that way, that it is a sexuality, that "cures" are about as effective as "cures" for "teh ghey."

However, and of course, this is a big however....

Pedophiles cannot express their sexuality in a way that is safe. Homosexuality is conducted between consenting adults. Gay porn is done by consenting adults (or it's illegal, but the point is it can be done by people who consent). Acting on pedophilia causes actual harm, in part because the kids involved generally have trouble grasping the scenario.

While I feel bad for people with such an attraction, as the evidence shows they were very likely born that way, that's not sufficient to let them actually harm children.

Speaking, of, that link mischaracterises the APA. Then again, so do the advocates for pedophilia. Rind etc al. was a meta study published in one of the APA's peer-reviewed academic journals, and was not inherently endorsed by the APA. This is similar to the fact that you can occasionally find studies refuting global warming/climate change in respected, peer-reviewed scientific publications; it does not equal endorsement. The findings do not endorse allowing adults to have sex with kids, and both the findings and methodology have received much criticism and scrutiny.

Suffice to say, there is little standing to the notion that pedophiles don't cause harm.

And, I will reiterate, pedophiles differ from homosexuals in that pedophiles cannot act without harm. While the root cause may be the same, we definitely can't equate the end act.

In any event, I'm just trying to add context and clarification.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't buy it. It's like a feeble "I'm not racist some of my friends are black" excuse.

Actually, let's take it one step further. He's okay with black people in theory, as long as they don't "act black."

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Because why would anyone choose to be one of the most socially persecuted groups in history? People that claim that homosexuality is a choice (or that bisexuality is just ?people being picky?) don?t seem to understand basic biology, and are probably the same people that argue that if you orgasm during rape, you ?secretly wanted it?.

You literally can?t help what attracts you, and you can?t make yourself like something. I mean, no matter how I hard I try, I would never be able to like broccoli, even if you doused it in shitloads of chilli sauce in an attempt to mask the taste. Just like you couldn?t introduce a gay man to a woman and say, ?If you think really hard, I bet you?ll get into it. Now fuck her.?

And that?s not even getting into the love/romance aspect of things. Ultimately, the only ?choice? when it comes to sexuality is who you pick as a partner, not the actual attraction in the first place. So yeah, it?s just a method of victim-blaming perpetuated by homophobes who don?t want to admit that the primary reason they?re against gay people doing whatever they want in their private lives is because ?it?s icky, so stop liking things I don?t like?.

 

[rodeolifant]

Whilst homosexuality isn't a choice - There's an entire lifestyle surrounding it - that sure as hell is a choice.

One can be attracted to the same sex whilst not changing the way one speaks, dresses and acts. Taking part in a scene, putting oneself in a corner, for whatever reason - is.

This scene, however is the most noticeable thing people perceive, and as a result - that's what they generally mean that it's a choice.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Huh, I didn't realize the community felt so strongly about this. Interesting...

In the end, I don't think it matters. There's nothing wrong with it if it is a choice. There's nothing wrong with it if it isn't.

Edit: Like really strongly. Garsh. These feels.

It shouldn't matter if it's a choice. People should be free to choose their own relationships, so long as they are not harming anyone. You shouldn't, for example, be able to choose lock up (insert C-List celebrity here) and make him/her your love slave. Well, unless they're onboard with it.

The reality is that it does matter, because if it's a choice, it's societally okay to discriminate against that choice.

But surely the end goal for the gay rights movement would be to remove most of that discrimination?
"It doesn't matter that I chose to be gay, or if I was born gay. The point is I am, and that's okay"

 

[Phrozenflame500]

snip

So basically you're ignoring what the OP specifically says and go for an ad-hominem attack rather then actually try to discredit his argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah. "I mean there's nothing wrong with being black, and it's clearly not a choice, it's just why do people get offended if I point out that acting black is a choice? Being black isn't a choice obviously, and don't get me wrong there's absolutely nothing wrong with being black I'm completely fine with it, it's just I don't see why people get offended if I point out that black people choose to act black."

That's quite an accurate analogy of the OP I'd say.

And both absurd and terrifying. At the same time.

But surely the end goal for the gay rights movement would be to remove most of that discrimination?
"It doesn't matter that I chose to be gay, or if I was born gay. The point is I am, and that's okay"

While ostensibly true, consider how absurd that sounds to people for whom their sexuality comes as natural as their skin-colour or handedness.

I would think that one of the major goals of any movement would be to establish the truth of the matter. Unless you're talking the truther movement or the flat earth society, but that's because they fail at things like science and critical thinking. I would think that false concessions would still run counter-intuitive to the overall purpose.

 

[JimB]

I think I figured it out.

At first, I thought it was the blame angle that people have mentioned previously, the bit about how it being a choice makes it subject to moral judgment, but I think it's actually a little more basic than that. It's that some person who has no idea what he's talking about yet is so steeped in arrogance that he makes his ignorance into canon has the gall to say that he knows better than you do the basis of your sexual orientation. Every gay person who has ever wished to be straight, has ever tried to be straight, has ever struggled with a confusing and sometimes dangerous sexual orientation is being told by some ignorant ************ whose only basis for his assertions is pure thoughtlessness, "You are a liar for saying that, so admit that you've chosen to be gay." Dude, fuck you, don't tell me about my orientation.

 

[Eddie the head]

snip

So basically you're ignoring what the OP specifically says and go for an ad-hominem attack rather then actually try to discredit his argument.

That's not an ad-hominem. At best you could call it a bad metaphor but, it's not a personal attack. You could call it a false analogy fallacy, I guess, but you would need to explain way.

 

[Wickatricka]

Well I mean if somebody told me I choose to be straight then I wouldn't mind. The only reason people think that choice is a bad thing is because in the back of their mind they still think being gay is a bad thing. Social or regional circumstances have drilled into their brain this is not how its suppose to be. Maybe its a evolution thing but still animals have same sex. So really I have no idea.

 

[Jenvas1306]

to add some really vague scientifc guessing into the mix: from observing other primates it seems that pure hetero- or homosexuality is rare and that the norm is some form of being bi. now if you are equally attracted to men and women, i guess then you got a choice, but if you are clearly more attracted to the same gender, then your choice is just if you want to be 'normal' or if you want to be happy.
I guess that only people who are sort of bi can see that as a choice which puts people who believe that into a different light, certainly not the super hetero light they want to be see in...

any person who chooses being normal over being happy makes their life a huge waste of time, in my opinion.

more on topic: its not offensive to think or say that homosexuality was a choice, its just blandly stupid. (usually such a statement also implies that who choses to be gay just deserves the negative crap that comes with it, which is offensive)

 

[Woodsey]

Probably because choosing to be gay and choosing to have sex with someone you're attracted to are two different things.

 

[SushiJaguar]

I didn't quite catch that last bit. But I've think I've got the gist of it.
My view on the matter is that it's obviously a possibility for a gay man to just bite the bullet. It wouldn't be healthy, and in most cases extremely rude to the female. But it's an option. In other words it's a choice not to do so, and just go with what you feel like.
If I would be at the far gay side of the sexual spectrum, I think I'd be like: So I happen to be gay, so I'm going with the obvious healthy CHOICE to have sex with men instead of women.

Yeah, it was also a choice for Jews during WWII to walk around in the street punching out the SchutzStaffel and waving "Fuck Hitler with the Star of David" flags. They didn't do it, because it wasn't a choice at all. The similarity here is that you don't just choose to fuck a chick if you're gay. You might find it unappealing, or even repulsive. I know I find eating out girl to be the most digusting thing in the world, next to being in eyesight of insects.

Anyway the point is, that you just don't seem to get that nothing about it is a choice. Acting on any sexual orientation isn't a choice unless you're asexual, because then you just don't have a sex drive. But for the rest of us, gay, straight, bi, whatever, deep down we all wanna have sex. But anyone who isn't heterosexual? Whoa-oh, hold on there skipper, better be ready to face hate and slander just 'cause you're not "normal". Honestly, I sometimes think the only thing that'll change people's minds on this matter would be being discriminated against themselves.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

To first analyse whether believing it's a 'choice' to be Homosexual, we need to know what drives Sexuality in general. To sum it up in a single word: Instinct. Instinct is not choice, it is ingrained in our minds thanks to this wonderful thing called 'Evolution'. We use Instinct to survive, and sexuality is derived from that. So, what does that mean? It means that no, Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It is ingrained in someone due to the way they are, the way they were born to be. That doesn't mean that you can't 'become' homosexual, as major life events and other factors MAY affect whether you are interested in either gender. That's where we open the massive box that contains all the other sexualities. The two others that are most common are Asexuality and Bisexuality. Without making my post longer, Bisexuals like both genders and Asexuals don't want sexual intercourse at all (doesn't mean they don't want a meaningful partnership).

TL;DR: No, it's not a choice because it's based on instinct and that's why it's offensive; because it's wrong.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Let's do a little thought experiment. Whatever you happen to be attracted to in men/women/other choice here(?), did you choose to be attracted to that certain aspect?

Personally, I know I prefer shorter, as in below average height, dark haired women with green or blue eyes. I don't really know why, I just do. Ultimately, sexuality is attraction. Some people are most attracted to the same sex. Unless I'm completely out of the ordinary, I don't think they know why either. Making a choice requires knowledge that there is another option. When it comes to sexuality, there really isn't another option than what you find you like.

So it's offensive because it's inaccurate. Furthermore, given the general disposition of most people who make the claim that homosexuality is a choice, it just adds fuel to the flames there. Basically, it's made more offensive by the fact that offensive dickheads like to make the same argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

Honestly, I sometimes think the only thing that'll change people's minds on this matter would be being discriminated against themselves.

I doubt that would change much. Have you seen how majorities tend to react when they are discriminated against? They do so without any awareness of the parallels. Hell, most of the time they seem to try and dig up justifications on how they are actually the victims in all this. This is why we have all this bitching going on about how gays are threatening marriage.

YOU SEE? YOU SEE FOLKS? WE'RE NOT BIGOTS TRYING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A MINORITY! WE'RE UNDER ATTACK BY THAT MINORITY!

 

[Coppernerves]

Honestly why is it? Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality, in fact I can see myself experimenting some day. But for the live of me I can't see why it's most often considered offensive to think of it as a choice.
I can see that being more sexually attracted to the same sex isn't something you do so purposfully/consiously. So if you purely regard homosexuality as being dominantly sexually attracted to the same sex. Then yes it isn't really a choice, more something that just happens to you. But surely everything beyond that is a choice right?
Again I want to stress that I think it's the right choice. Sexuality is a good thing, so I'd encourage people to do whatever they want on that area as long as all involved parties are consentfull.
But still acting upon your homosexuality is surely a choice right? So why is it considered offensive to regard it as such? Especially as the alternative is to regard it as something like an affliction, which I personally would find much more offensive.

Just in case someone hasn't said this:

Homosexuality is attraction to people of the same gender, not what you do about it.

 

[DANEgerous]

Here is the most simple version. It is a choice, any choice can be changed, You can stop being homosexual, We have the right to demand you change.

It is not the act of saying it is a choice that is offensive that is just ignorance, what is offensive about it is the doors it opens. If it is set then you have no real cause to protest unless you can find how it harms someone. But if is a choice you can discourage it for whatever reason you want and for some reason (or rather many poor ones) people really want to discourage homosexuality. So sexuality being set goes back to "real cause to protest unless you can find how it harms someone" and they can't find any tangible harm thus massive damage is done to their argument.

TL;DR? As a choice it can be wrong. If it can be wrong those who oppose it still have a chance.